Typical response from Canadian Authorities.Ms Savitz call for Canada to take "Quick Action" is something not in their playbook.The've convenietly waited until the ship drifted into Int'l waters in order to wash their hands of the matter. Can't see this having a good outcome

While I agree with you to a certain degree Paul. It is time all countries put a stop to these old tugs, not fit to be at sea towing these old ships to the scrap yard and when something happens they walk away.Case in point the MV Miner which is still high and dry on Scatari Island in Nova Scotia. Example 2 the tug Craig Trans currently sitting in Halifax.I don't think she is fit to do anything let alone tow another retired lake boat. I would say that is the very reason Transport Canada is taking this course of action.I can't say I blame them. It is high time the owners take responsibility for their property!!

While I agree with you to a certain degree Paul. It is time all countries put a stop to these old tugs, not fit to be at sea towing these old ships to the scrap yard and when something happens they walk away.Case in point the MV Miner which is still high and dry on Scatari Island in Nova Scotia. Example 2 the tug Craig Trans currently sitting in Halifax.I don't think she is fit to do anything let alone tow another retired lake boat. I would say that is the very reason Transport Canada is taking this course of action.I can't say I blame them. It is high time the owners take responsibility for their property!!

CheersJarrod

While I agree with you, surely this vessel can not be left to drift at will!

I would like to hope they are taking precautions to safeguard shipping.I think the Govt of Canada is trying to get the owners to take responsibility for their property.It should not be left to the Governments of this world to pick up the mess afterwards.It retrospect the Charlene Hunt should never have been given the clearance to depart.

So, the Canadian Government finds it acceptable to turn their back on a private operator who find themselves in circumstances beyond their control, but if the Government are the operator than it is acceptable to dedicate enormous publicly funded resources to respond? I recognize the circumstances here, but I think there is more to this than this incident. Anyway, this turned out to be a great forum subject which I think has provided a positive environment for participation and an exchange of opinion and it has spurred some other valuable forums on the same subject.

This lawyer's quote caught my eye in the Toronto Star piece: "Though the government was involved in the towing operation, the vessel is ultimately the responsibility of its owners, according to two lawyers. Clay Hunter, partner with Paterson MacDougall, LLP, likened the situation to this: If a car on a hill were to suddenly start accelerating down the hill, and a police officer tried to stop the car but failed, the police officer wouldn’t be held responsible for any damage done by the car."

2) a police officer was sent and the car was handed over to him (Transport Canada sent the MAERSK CHALLENGER which took over the tow successfully)

3) subsequently, when the car had been taken as far as the police boundary, it started off down the hill again, but the police chief said "leave it to crash" (depending on which press version you believe, once outside Canadian territorial waters, either MAERSK CHALLENGER was instructed to slip the tow, or the tow broke free and MAERSK CHALLENGER was told not to continue to stay with the LO with a view to reconnecting when conditions allowed, and warn any other vessels).